Why can't people speak English anymore?

Standing in the queue at the sandwich shop for my lunch I am assailed on all sides by young people calling out "Can I get .... such and such?". "Can I get?" - what sort of language is that? Of course they can't get anything - it is not a self-service establishment. They have to wait in the queue to be served like everyone else. With the huge variety of ethnic minorities now living and working in this country and struggling to learn the language, the least we thoroughbred English can do is to speak the language properly so they can easily pick it up. What chance have they got when all they hear is some warped version of the mother tongue such as "Can I get?".

The Vagaries of Fashion

I'm sure you've all heard the agonising question "Does my bum look big in this?" I have always understood that if the answer to this question was "yes", then the female concerned (because it was always a female) would choose to wear something else. I'm sure the majority, if not all, of my male colleagues, understood the question in the same way. But it appears now that we may have been wrong all along. The latest marketing craze, it seems, is padded knickers, intended to deliberately make a woman's bum look bigger than normal. These we are assured, are selling like hot cakes. I'm not sure which is more contrary ...... fashion or women!

More on the Atheist Bus

To counter the atheist bus project with the slogan "There is probably no God", the Christian Party have launched a retaliatory project with buses marked with the slogan "There is a God". Strangely, the Advertising Standards Authority have had 1,045 complaints about this last slogan, 10 times more than for the atheist slogan. They have neatly wriggled out of having to do anything about it, however, by claiming that the advertisements are "electioneering" and therefore outside their remit.

God must be used to some people following him and others not, but the idea of being voted on must be an entirely new concept.

Child Support Agency

I am very concerned to read, this week in the Times, this article
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5804200.ece

The Child Support Agency appears to be totally out of control and a law unto itself. Much has been written about its gross inefficiency and I could go on at length about that (from personal experience), but what I want to highlight here is the dubious morality of the whole CSA concept. It is yet another example of the government devising a very rigid system to deal with a problem and then applying it across the board, whether it is appropriate or not. In most other situations there is some means of appeal for inappropriate situations but in the case of the CSA there is no appeal under any circumstances. You may appeal against the assessment if you feel the amount is not appropriate but under no conditions can you appeal against the fact that an assessment has been made in the first place.

The concept of the system is based on the observation that in many cases a man walks out on his partner leaving her with a child or children and no means of support. I don't doubt that this is what usually happens, and I have no problem with the concept that he ought to financially support his family. But consider the reverse scenario which can and does frequently happen. The woman walks out on the man, for no valid reason, and takes the children with her. The man has been seduced into fathering children on the understanding that they would all form a happy family, and then the woman leaves, either because she had no intention of forming a happy family, or because she has found a new man she prefers the look of. The man is left with a destroyed life. He has planned to form a happy family and to be a good father for the rest of his life. Now he is suddenly left with no wife, no children, no family. And to add insult to injury he is expected to pay for the priviledge.

The government, from time to time, blows its own trumpet over how they are supporting strong families and how this is good for the social stability of the country. But letting the CSA loose in the scenario above certainly does not help support those ideals ........ quite the opposite. It encourages women to get pregnant with no intention of making a proper family, or to run off with another man, knowing that they will be financially supported by the poor abandoned spouse.

Now, assuming the woman has gone off with another man and the abandoned spouse manages to find another partner with children we are left with the bizarre situation where the errant wife is being supported twice (once by her new man and once by her ex partner) and the ex partner is having to pay twice (once for his new family and once for his old family). I ask you .... is that just or fair? I understand the CSA is about to be replaced by a new body. Let's just hope that the government learns from its mistakes and puts sufficient flexibility into the system to prevent such miscarriages of justice in the future.

Local Government Stupidity 3

This week the local press reports a family of seven, currently living in a three bedroomed house, who have been refused a four bedroomed house by the Council on the grounds that it is not big enough for their family. Apparently they have done an assessment of the house and decided that it would be best for the house if it was occupied by a family of six.

Well excuse me, but since when did what is best for the house have anything to do with it. I thought the purpose of a Local Authority was to do what was best for the residents in their area. I accept that this family may still be technically overcrowded if they took this house but, in anyones eyes, four bedrooms is better than three. So, unless the Council have a five bedroomed house to offer this family, their argument is a bit insensitive.

I accept that there are other families on the waiting list who may have a greater claim, but the question to ask should be "which family would benefit most from occupying this house" rather than "which family best fits the house".

Birds

The cold weather has brought a flock of long-tailed tits to our garden bird-feeder.

According to my bird book, long-tailed tits rarely visit suburban gardens ..... so we are really honoured by their presence.

Local Government - Stupidity 2

This week we hear that Birmingham City Council has made a policy decision to spend their taxpayers' money on going round painting out the apostrophes on the road signs for such places as Acock's Green and King's Heath. In future no road signs will be allowed an apostrophe. At a stroke the Council has decided that it knows better than the rest of the country how the King's English is to be spelt (Kings English!).
The official reason for this stupidity and monstrous arrogance is, apparently, that the Acock family no longer own the green and the king no longer owns the heath. So what? You can't just change the national language because ownership changes. It is part of the area's heritage that the king once owned the heath and the Acock family once owned the green. Are they suggesting that any road names that don't reflect current reality should be changed? I can think of many examples of a "Cambridge Road" which doesn't lead to Cambridge or a "High Street" which is no longer the main street in a town.

I suspect the real reason for this decision was that the councillors thought so little of the intellectual capabilities of their residents that they assumed most of them wouldn't know what an apostrophe was. How arrogant can you get?

Many local government staff, myself included, have been on quality assurance courses to try and improve the quality of local government and the services it offers to its residents. One of the definitions that sticks in my mind is that "Quality assurance is about getting it right first time" rather than trying to correct mistakes once they are made. A council that deliberately formulates a policy to ensure that they get it wrong first time and flatly refuse to correct it thereafter is completely outside the fraternity of other councils who are doing their best to improve things. I can only pity the residents of Birmingham if this is the quality of councillors they elect.